Ok let's cool it down.
The fact is that I truly and deeply respect RMH, who he is, what is done,
and his work on EJBoss. RMH is an outstanding coder (I should say "you" are
an outstanding coder, since you are probably reading this).
There were a lot of bad feeling coming from Mr Ghalimi when he lured RMH
away from the core group of jboss (I have a few mails he sent to
contributors basically dising us, badly, for his own profit). I remember
that thread on java-lobby where he was called a parasite :( nasty, but that
is behind us.
I know Rickard gets his ideas from his roommates (yes the Orion guy (1 dude)
was Rickard's room-mate:-) and I also know it took *me* 3 weeks to explain
it to RMH. The openEJB container *was* based on that stuff. Where it is
going now is another story.
Now I am actually intrigued by the direction RMH is taking, if he is truly
investigating new container directions. I see it more as an "mach kernel
research" kind of thing. I think he understands that putting the server
together is a big task and he rightly focuses on the kernel, smart move.
The bottom line is this: I know RMH is good and that if the scope is right
he can pull it. We will be looking at the container design down the road.
Peace, Love, (good) Code
regards
marc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of sandeep
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 9:38 AM
> To: jBoss
> Subject: RE: [jBoss-User] Of container designs and other little
> queries..
>
>
> "This server is especially relying on the outstanding container design
> developed by Rickard Oberg and used by the EJBoss project.."
>
> is another quote from the same page...
>
> The source? Well, its actually from a mail from Ismael Ghalimi to
> one of the
> (e)jboss mailing lists. Check it out at:
> http://list.working-dogs.com/lists/ejboss/ejboss%2001-07-00
>
> And you're right, Richard. It doesn't say anywhere that "Rickard designed
> OpenEJB". I'll concede that. ;-)
>
> Personally and IMHO, I would like to see a "configurable environment" for
> JBoss where you can "optionally" plug in OpenEJB, if I really wanted a hot
> shot container for a production environment instead of the "native" JBoss
> container - you know, as sort of a value add. For eg if there's some
> advanced clustering features that the OpenEJB container system provides
> that's not (yet) in JBoss.
>
> >> "..but I think Salability and fault tolerance are the design
> goals of any
> application server so I won't dispute it..."
>
> I disagree with Richard here.
>
> What about a pure development purpose J2EE server, where I need to just
> build my entire system (containing hundreds of beans) and debug it. I do
> not think my requirement list contains scalability and fault tolerance. I
> think that's one of the best part of Java and EJB technology. You
> don't have
> to necessarily build your application in an environment that mimics the
> production enviroment. You can build your beans in a good quality
> development environment like JBoss gives you and then move your whole J2EE
> application, if necessary, to an top-flight enterprise quality app server.
> (That's not to say JBoss won't hit that level sometime soon! With Marc,
> Rickard and the rest of the seemingly-on-steroids JBoss team around, its
> definitely going to happen!)
>
> Sandeep Dath.
>
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." --
> Arthur C. Clarke
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jBoss [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, August 11, 2000 8:16 PM
> To: jBoss
> Subject: Re: [jBoss-User] Of container designs and other little
> queries..
>
>
> sandeep wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > I just came across a few sketchy comments about the OpenEJB
> archtecture -
> > i.e. how both JBoss and OpenEJB both share Rickard's container design.
>
> OpenEJB is not Rickard's design. I think we have to give credit where
> credit is
> due, so here is a little background: The folks at Orion came up with the
> idea
> of using the JDK 1.3 proxies for Java RMI stubs. Rickard used
> Orion's idea
> to
> create the first proof of concept for his jBoss architecture. I thought
> that
> the real power of the JDK 1.3 proxies was the deligation pattern at the
> container, not the stub implementation itself. The pattern allows one
> container
> to handle all the bean requests concurrently, something that was not fully
> realized in the original jBoss proof-of-concept. It was at that
> time that I
> left the jBoss project to start the OpenEJB project, which is
> based on this
> pattern.
>
> Anyway, since that time OpenEJB and jBoss have taken wildly
> different paths.
> I
> think we are sometimes inspired by each others work, but to say
> that OpenEJB
> is
> Richard's container design is ridiculous. I'm sure Rickard would agree.
>
> > And
> > in the case of OpenEJB, "the goal of this project is to develop a
> production
> > server which people will be able to use for mission critical
> applications.
> > Scalability, fault tolerance, and working supports for entity beans and
> CMP
> > are top priorities of this effort."
>
> Not sure where you got this quote, but I think Salability and fault
> tolerance
> are the design goals of any application server so I won't dispute it.
>
> >
> > Q2: From the architectural standpoint, what the difference between
> OpenEJB
> > and JBoss right about NOW?
>
> OpenEJB is strictly a container system and its community is composed of
> application server developers, not business system developer as
> is the case
> with
> jBoss. OpenEJB is already been adopted by two proprietary application
> servers
> as well as the OpenORB CORBA server, so it's proven successful in its role
> as a
> container system.
>
> I don't think anyone in the jBoss community will use OpenEJB directly
> because
> its intended for those people that are developing application servers. In
> the
> future, however, you may end up using OpenEJB and not even know it because
> it
> will be hidden inside the application server you are using.
>
> OpenEJB gives application server vendors and open source projects instance
> EJB
> 2.0 functionality -- that probably doesn't mean much to you folks but for
> application server developers its a real windfall. We focus on just the
> container system so we can direct our energies to creating a very powerful
> and
> fast EJB 2.0 container. Application serves that use OpenEJB can depend on
> it
> performance and conformance and its community. Application
> developers that
> use
> a server built on OpenEJB can be assured that the core container is
> reliable,
> performant, and behaves as expected.
>
> Ideally, we would like to see jBoss adopt OpenEJB as its container system.
> That
> way the good folks at jBoss can focus on all the other functionality of a
> J2EE
> system, while we continue to enhance and support the core EJB 2.0
> container.
> This is the path that other J2EE vendors and open source J2EE projects are
> using
> or considering because it makes good business sense.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Richard
> --
> Richard Monson-Haefel
> Author of Enterprise JavaBeans, 2nd Edition
> Published by O'Reilly & Associates
> http://www.EjbNow.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
